Complacency

[Gordon Mohr]

Eugene Leitl writes:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Gordon Mohr wrote:
> 
> > I think the use of cheap cameras and recognition technology to
> > reduce crime in public places is a net positive, for safety and
> > liberty.
> >
> > What abuses do you fear?
> 
> Let me see, I'm running a blanket realtime reporting service on _anybody_.
> And his dog. This gives me your movement trajectory, and of course you've
> heard about data mining? Less crosscorrelate these trajectories. Hmm, vewy
> vewy inderestink who you've been seeing in the past decade Herr Gordon
> Mohr.  And whom they've been seeing, why, how subversive. We'll see what
> ve vil do about it.

And what if everyone has this information on everyone? 

That is, I know you're running a realtime reporting service on me.
I know exactly who you give that information to. Before the police
show up at my door, I saw them, at the station, arguing about 
whether to pick me up. 

My neighbors (& co-conspirators & enemies) all saw the authorities
arrive at my door, every word they spoke and action they took. And
the public can see the inner workings of every government office,
every prison, every court.

> With streamlined enforcement (you have no idea how streamlined it can be,
> even not considering fancy stuff like ubiquitous police bots and remotely
> triggerable explosive cranial implants inserted at a very early age) this
> allows you to very efficiently squash opposition. Of any sorts.
> 
> Now given evolutionary diversity, self-selecting mechanisms for a certain
> personality type in current power structures and given sufficient time
> you're practically begging for a pathological personality taking over, and
> making 1984 look like a kid birthday party in comparision. I recommend you
> to read Vinge's A Deepness In the Sky, focusing on the Emergent culture.
> 
> Guess what, some of that tech is for real.

I really like that book. Yes, much of that technology is real.

Again, for Eugene the question I asked Jeff: Are you arguing for 
voluntarily relinquishment of surveillance technology? Laws against 
its development and use, by both public and private entities?

Will those laws protect us from the government, or other sufficiently
powerful entities which choose to ignore the laws?

Let's say we all agree this technology will exist (already does 
exist!) and no government can ban its use. What, then, is the best 
achievable policy? 

I've proposed that it is total openness and equality of access. 
That's the only way to mitigate abuses. If I'm being recorded, let 
me (and the public at large) record the people who are recording 
me. Watch the watchmen.

If I'm going to be caught on camera picking my nose, scratching
my balls, or frequenting houses of various vices, make sure that
everyone else who's doing the same, famous and common alike, are
similarly revealed.

If I am now sure to be caught "cheating" on my wife, make sure
that everyone is, so that people no longer have the expectation 
they can deceive each other easily.

Sure, we'll all miss the privacy. We may not miss the hypocrisy.

> > Are you arguing for voluntarily relinquishment of technologies
> > which might be used for illegimate purposes? Do you really
> > think bad people will choose not to use these technologies in
> > secret?
> 
> Are you that naive on purpose?

You've identified a problem. I've suggested a solution. 

WHAT IS YOUR OH-SO-SOPHISTICATED PROPOSAL?

- Gordon